Weapons of War / escalation of armor vs. weapon

[slaanghoul]

There has been a lot of discussion about the Nippon... then kind of went off topic and talk about Katana. Kind of a long post, but i will get to Warhammer.

This got me thinking about the escalation of armor vs. weapon. I think we all can agree that the battle between the armor and weapon is over and the weapon won.

What I'm saying is when the first weapon was invented (I'm guessing club) somebody was inventing another tool to protect it (armor). So club and spears were one of the first weapons and fur and leather shields were some of the first armor. The armor lost for a long time because the weapon just keep getting sharper and stronger and the armor just can't seems to catch up. It was the weapons that won for a long time, then plate mail was invented and the armor won for a while. Fast forward a few 100s years with guns and armor were gone and weapon won again. Then Heavy armor machine (tank) came along and armor won again for a bit. Then bigger guns and bombs came and weapon won.

Now weapons just rule over armor and I mean the battle is over and armor is lost for good. The best defend is now speed. Tank armor is just about maxed out and nothing more can be done except to avoid getting hit by bombs and missile (weapons). Our tech is just too advance in the weapon side and not advanced enough in the armor side. We would need something like forcefield or something like that for protection now. Even hand guns are just too powerful and not enough armor can protect it. Yes modern body armor can help saves you, but with the powerful rounds and volume of fire power ... it will put you down or killed you.

With that stated above, I will say that there are many great weapons and armors in the history of our species. It would be stupid and useless to use a broad sword or a katana to go up against any tank. But broad sword and Katana were the best weapon of choice at one time in it's history of usage.

How would one judge what is a good weapon and armor or the best weapon and armor of that type? Lets take a look at swords. I would say that the last swords that was use in wars by a powerful nation and that powerful nation replace that sword with a better weapon (guns), that sword must be the best sword for that nation. Same rules with armor. Speaking of swords here, I also feel that the sword just like Tanks armor, is about as limited in it's design as can be. You can't improved it any more, unless we are talking about light saber or chain sword or power weapon right? Because of this, we can pick what good swords are in our history.

There are my swords in our history and Katana fit my criteria above as best sword. It was the last sword designed by the Japanese before it switch to a better techo weapon (guns). The sword can't be design better anymore, yes 20 century metal can do better, but the design and shape of the swords is about the same... this is why this weapon is perfect and can't be any better.. unless we go power weapon and force field stuff haha.

Weapons that are inferior because of limited resource and techonology are easy to point out. Example The Aztec Sword - macuahuitl (the kind lizardmen use that has two stick with sharp stone tie to it. Don't get me wrong, it is a powerful weapon for South american and consider top pick weapon for combat, but it is still very close to primitive because Aztec don't have metal and sad to say... wheels. Can macuahuitl be improved? Yes, use steel. So this Macuahuitl is not yet a perfect weapon and their civilization were destroyed before this club/sword can be improve.

Can Katana be improve? Some might say that double edge sword or a straight blade would be better on the Katana. There are a lot of draw back to double edge and straight blade such as you can not do quick draw kill attack, which is one of Katana signature move. The curve blade can do that. A straight blade will be impossible to do a draw kill move, especially if you have double edge which can be block and bounce back and cut the user. The term of double edge sword is just that, the other edge is as dangerous to the user also.

So in closing ... this is why I think Katana is one of the best sword and classic in it's history because it is maxed out and can't be improved, it is the best in it's class. That class is destroying light armor enemy, max control for the user and one of the sharpest sword.

If any of you weapon or armor buff out there who know your stuff and use my criteria above to explain your perfect weapon/armor, I would be interested to learn more.

Now with Warhammer game, where are we in the escalation of weapon vs armor? I have to say that armor has won over weapon.
Let me give you a "human" A (armor) and Human W (weapon) stats. Both will have 3 on all stats except 1W and 1A and LD7.
A will be armor with light armor, shield, and sword (5+ /6++) B will be using light armor and halberd (6+ / str 4)

Who will win? I think A right?

I would give Katana the same rule as Halberd/ 2 hand strike by Initiative with +1 S

Almost every unit I know would choice extra protection over killing, unless it is slow Initiative and has muti attack such as frenzy... then pick weapon over armor.

[Son of Sanguinius]

Please don't take any of the following critiques of what you wrote personally.

First, you should really brush up on your history of weapons, armor, and especially military tactics. Weapons have by no means "won" the arms race. You can even build armor to protect against nuclear attack. Remember that the reason the arms race continues is because different civilizations keep encountering defenses that they feel the need to break down.

But more importantly, you're making huge leaps of logic to judge which weapons are "better". As the Wolf Lord in Prospero Burns said, "you have to use the right tool for the right job". A katana is not going to get through a well made suit of plate armor with any reliability. But put a claymore or any other hefty broadsword in and suddenly that well-armored knight can't shrug off impact.

In the warhammer world, superiority of armor versus weapons depends entirely on the army in question. Dwarf armor makes Imperial or Skaven weapons look like children's toys. But an enchanted chaos sword makes dwarf armor a joke too. The point is once you introduce magic, you can practically justify any scale.

[Arnizipal]

Can Katana be improve? Some might say that double edge sword or a straight blade would be better on the Katana. There are a lot of draw back to double edge and straight blade such as you can not do quick draw kill attack, which is one of Katana signature move. The curve blade can do that. A straight blade will be impossible to do a draw kill move, especially if you have double edge which can be block and bounce back and cut the user. The term of double edge sword is just that, the other edge is as dangerous to the user also.

Maybe I missed something here but why would it be impossible for a straight blade to do a "quick draw kill" attack?

Just draw and slash in a single movement. Sword shape should not be an issue here.

[Urgat]

First, you should really brush up on your history of weapons, armor, and especially military tactics. Weapons have by no means "won" the arms race. You can even build armor to protect against nuclear attack. Remember that the reason the arms race continues is because different civilizations keep encountering defenses that they feel the need to break down.

Yeah, lots of theories and projects on reactive armors (already exists in fact, the Israelis have had explosive ones for 30 years, but they got a tendency to kill nearby people ), pinpoint defense and so on, so I wouldn't say armor is long gone.

[Athlan na Dyr]

Yeah, lots of theories and projects on reactive armors (already exists in fact, the Israelis have had explosive ones for 30 years, but they got a tendency to kill nearby people ), pinpoint defense and so on, so I wouldn't say armor is long gone.

Regardless, man-portable armour being worn by a substantial number of soldiers (though not a majority) that can relaible protect against the vast majority of small arms has dissapeared from the modern battlefield.
There are a myriad of reasons for this, including weight, practicality and expense. However all of these have a common root in weaponry improving (and reducing in cost) to such a degree that armour is forced to drastically increase protection or be of negligible value compared to a shirt and jeans.

Gone are the days of an opponent's sword breaking against your helmet, of knights in shining armour charging into a group of short swordsmen with only a few casualties sufferred. Now its a kevlar flak jacket reducing a bullet's velocity by enough to increase your chances of survival (though generally they don't prevent injury, especially against high velocity rounds or Armour Piercing ones).

Good thing is we've got tanks to compensate

[slaanghoul]

"Please don't take any of the following critiques of what you wrote personally.

First, you should really brush up on your history of weapons, armor, and especially military tactics. Weapons have by no means "won" the arms race. You can even build armor to protect against nuclear attack. Remember that the reason the arms race continues is because different civilizations keep encountering defenses that they feel the need to break down.

But more importantly, you're making huge leaps of logic to judge which weapons are "better". As the Wolf Lord in Prospero Burns said, "you have to use the right tool for the right job". A katana is not going to get through a well made suit of plate armor with any reliability. But put a claymore or any other hefty broadsword in and suddenly that well-armored knight can't shrug off impact.

In the warhammer world, superiority of armor versus weapons depends entirely on the army in question. Dwarf armor makes Imperial or Skaven weapons look like children's toys. But an enchanted chaos sword makes dwarf armor a joke too. The point is once you introduce magic, you can practically justify any scale."
Son of Sanguinius

I don't take it the wrong way... we are expressing our ideas here
Germany Full platemail armor kick some ass, but colt 45 will punch threw it. that example is to show that platemail is a thing of the past because better weapon make them useless. Give me any armor with the scale of the weapon and the same result. You have to scale the armor vs weapon together. The best modern personal armor will get dusted by M82 rifle. The best tank in the world will get destroyed by anti tank gun. Nothing can with stand a ground zero nuke attack. If you said a bunker, then I wouldn't consider that armor... I mean Taliban hide in caves and mountain... that don't mean Taliban have superior armor... I call that terrain or fortress.

Our technology is so advance that gun powder and explosive are too much for most things to withstand. This is why I say the weapons have won. However... lets just pretend that for some reason or another... human civilization invented metal plate and for what ever reason we just never use that idea on weapons and we keep using wood spears and wood club.... then I would say armor won. Explosive, gun powder, and Nuke changed everything. Even crossbow and English long bow changed the faces of war... but that's more of battle tactics.

Last of all...

"you have to use the right tool for the right job". A katana is not going to get through a well made suit of plate armor with any reliability. But put a claymore or any other hefty broadsword in and suddenly that well-armored knight can't shrug off impact." Son of Sanguinius

You are comparing broadsword to katana.... wrong comparison. I told you that Katana is the best sword against light armor, not heavy armor. Yes those claymore and hefty broadsword can duel vs. Katana too... but the duel must be no armor or just light leather armor... and Katana will have the advantage because it is not as heavy and much much faster and sharper. Those heavy claymore are designed to hack (as you mentioned) heavy armor. It almost like comparing flamethrower vs. shotgun and the two are useful for different combat.

I do not know much about those heavy swords, but maybe it is the best sword as it can be for it's category... so it is a perfect weapon like a Katana.

[Urgat]

Gone are the days of an opponent's sword breaking against your helmet, of knights in shining armour charging into a group of short swordsmen with only a few casualties sufferred. Now its a kevlar flak jacket reducing a bullet's velocity by enough to increase your chances of survival (though generally they don't prevent injury, especially against high velocity rounds or Armour Piercing ones).

For now, was my point. For all we know, in ten years, we'll have a new material, or magnetic shields, or god knows what.

The best modern personal armor will get dusted by M82 rifle. The best tank in the world will get destroyed by anti tank gun. Nothing can with stand a ground zero nuke attack.

Yeah well, even back then, no armor could save you from the direct hit of a trebuchet, you know

[slaanghoul]

Maybe I missed something here but why would it be impossible for a straight blade to do a "quick draw kill" attack?

Just draw and slash in a single movement. Sword shape should not be an issue here.

It is an issue because you can't do that in a single move. . unless we are talking about a short sword. Get a broad sword or long sword and try that and it will not work. A katana is almost the same length as those sword and it will work.

It can but very very difficult to do because of the strait blade. Just picture youself drawing a curve sword from your hip... a curve blade, you can (if you are right handed) draw it out to the right and do a cut motion at the same time because the blade is curve. A strait blade will be impossible to do that action because you would have to draw it up toward your head or strait out away from your chess motion. Those strait blade must be two motions, draw and attack.

Also, if you study Katana... the kill draw attack is a training and an actual kill move. I'm sure you seen those moves in movies... it is based on real life.

[Son of Sanguinius]

I feel foolish for not bringing up the primary motivating element here.

Money.

Why are weapons ahead at the moment? Because ultimately the individuals who send people to war have done a cost-benefit analysis that tells them to make weapons rather than armor. It's simply not very economical in times of war to mass produce armor. It requires more material and time, both in research and production, and it's simply cheaper to produce a devastating weapon that can kill multiple people and be wielded by multiple people rather than armor that protects a single person and would often be compromised completely with its first failure. We live in a capitalist/psuedo-capitalist world where governments, cultures, and wars are as much business endeavors as they are ideological paradigms and paradigm *****, and this means that the definitions of the battlefield are vastly different than our own world history or that of WHF or WH40k, since capitalism has very little to do with the vast majority of those settings.

My point about the katana and broadsword was simply that multitudinous battlefield scenarios make it unrealistic to call the katana a "perfect weapon". Is it good at what is meant to do? Sure. But close enough we're talking about a game of inches here. Put me six inches inside the optimum range for a katana and I'd much rather have a bowie knife because I can more accurately direct it at armor joints. Put me six inches outside the optimum range for a katana and I'd rather have the reach of a halberd or short spear to keep my opponent outside his comfort zone. Now imagine how quick a single foot of range can be covered by two dueling opponents, especially in the chaos of a wider battlefield. I know I'm generalizing, but it just sounds like you're a little enthralled by the katana. Rightly so, I guess, because its simplicity and efficiency are hallmarks of a good weapon, but I think you go too far when call it perfect.

[slaanghoul]

Warhammer game again:

Please no magic or magic weapon here because I'm trying to figure out what won (weapon or armor) all normal and not magical. Man... I know WHFB is fantasy... but most troops do not have access to magic items. Oh and only foot troops (not calv or monstrous Inf.)

Best saves for standard armor is 4+ (heavy armor and shield)

Best anti armor saves weapon is Great weapon +2 Str right?

Who would win if we match up Emp. swords men (A) armed with heavy armor, sword and shield vs. Emp swordmen (B) armed with great weapon and heavy armor.

I'm not sure if I'm about to do the math right... but I will based every thing on how many attacks would each take to kill the other person.

Emp. A would take 4 attacks to wound B and then B has 33% chance to saves.

Emp B would take 2 attacks to wound and A has no saves.

However A would get to strike first.

By looking at this.... B should win right?

[Son of Sanguinius]

I don't know of Empire troops that would have that armor combo. You'd either have greatswords with a straight up 4+ save from their full plate or state troops with 5+ from light armor and shields. But I'll use yours for the sake of argument.

In your example, Emp A would have a 16%-17% of stopping the wound cause because the great weapon reduces his save to 6+, it doesn't negate it. Empire troops are Strength 3.

But ultimately, yes, you are right in that the great weapon wins. But that is rules design, and often times the great weapon will be more expensive than the shield. Forgive me, but I'm too lazy to do a cost-benefit analysis of which is better for the points. My suspicion is that great weapons are, especially when you give your troops more attacks, which is why a lot of people are pissed about stuff like bloodletters (who essentially have great weapons without having to strike last) and marauders with the mark of khorne.

[Poncho160]

It comes down to the simple equation of what is more cost effective. Equipping all your soldiers with expensive armour or a few soldiers lives?

The goverments around the world will supply you with the nessecary equipment, but only up to a certain cost limit. There is armour out there that will fully stop the type of ammunition that is being used in afghan and similar, but it is totally cost prohibitve to equip thousands of troops with it. Sad but true.

Dont really see what this has to do with Warhammer though!!!

[Son of Sanguinius]

It applies to warhammer because these are nations with economies who, in some cases, have to apply the same concepts to their militaries.

[Tayrod]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...Xc&hl=fr#gid=0

have fun

[slaanghoul]

I feel foolish for not bringing up the primary motivating element here.

Money.

Why are weapons ahead at the moment? Because ultimately the individuals who send people to war have done a cost-benefit analysis that tells them to make weapons rather than armor. It's simply not very economical in times of war to mass produce armor. It requires more material and time, both in research and production, and it's simply cheaper to produce a devastating weapon that can kill multiple people and be wielded by multiple people rather than armor that protects a single person and would often be compromised completely with its first failure. We live in a capitalist/psuedo-capitalist world where governments, cultures, and wars are as much business endeavors as they are ideological paradigms and paradigm *****, and this means that the definitions of the battlefield are vastly different than our own world history or that of WHF or WH40k, since capitalism has very little to do with the vast majority of those settings.

My point about the katana and broadsword was simply that multitudinous battlefield scenarios make it unrealistic to call the katana a "perfect weapon". Is it good at what is meant to do? Sure. But close enough we're talking about a game of inches here. Put me six inches inside the optimum range for a katana and I'd much rather have a bowie knife because I can more accurately direct it at armor joints. Put me six inches outside the optimum range for a katana and I'd rather have the reach of a halberd or short spear to keep my opponent outside his comfort zone. Now imagine how quick a single foot of range can be covered by two dueling opponents, especially in the chaos of a wider battlefield. I know I'm generalizing, but it just sounds like you're a little enthralled by the katana. Rightly so, I guess, because its simplicity and efficiency are hallmarks of a good weapon, but I think you go too far when call it perfect.

You really are missing my point.

If you re-read my post again you will know that I was trying to find out what is the perfect weapon of it's class. You can't bring in pikes and dagger vs. swords.

If you follow my formula you can find a perfect weapon of it's kind (I think my formula is kind of good for this)

"How would one judge what is a good weapon and armor or the best weapon and armor of that type? Lets take a look at swords. I would say that the last swords that was use in wars by a powerful nation and that powerful nation replace that sword with a better weapon (guns), that sword must be the best sword for that nation. Same rules with armor. Speaking of swords here, I also feel that the sword just like Tanks armor, is about as limited in it's design as can be. You can't improved it any more, unless we are talking about light saber or chain sword or power weapon right? Because of this, we can pick what good swords are in our history."

"There are many swords in our history and Katana fit my criteria above as best sword. It was the last sword designed by the Japanese before it switch to a better techo weapon (guns). The sword can't be design any better anymore, yes 20 century metal can do better, but the design and shape of the swords is about the same... this is why this weapon is perfect and can't be any better.. unless we go power weapon and force field stuff haha."

Maybe I should have break it down better that what I wrote above there:

Last weapon of that class before the weapon is replace by superior weapon by that army faction must be the perfect weapon of that army faction or best as can be.

So I pick Katana because I know a lot about the weapon and it fit right in to my formula.

Really pay attention of what I stated above and what I'm about to write. Last weapon (sword) before it is replace by a better weapon (guns) of that army faction (Japan). So for the Japanese... their best sword ever must be the Katana right? There are no other swords invented after the Katana and the logic is that every army faction always try to keep their weapon as best and powerful as possible..... but Japanese stopped at Katana. Can you think of a way to improve this Katana weapon? If you can you will be the richest man in the world.

For the Aztec: Last weapon (macuahuitl) a better weapon (none) ... so Aztec best sword is the Macuahuitl. We know that the Macuahuitl is not a very good weapon because a steel blade Macuahuitl would and is better so this weapon fail my formula as a perfect weapon. If the Aztec learned metal making... they might stop using macuahuitl all together and just switch their warrior training and go wish metal swords or metal war club or axes.

You want to talk about Claymore or Knife or Pikes, put it to my formula. Give me a nation/army factions best Pikes, swords, or whatever and see if it is the best of it's class.

So for the best perfect sword class of single blade, steel made, sharpness, control, and light weight.... I would say Katana is the best.

Unfortunately I do not know of other weapons that fit in the "katana" class to compare it and see which is better. Top of my head is the scimitar and I would love to compare the two, but there are many types and classes of Scimitar, so I can't comment on that and also you must put the scimitar to my formula to see which countries has the best scimitar and go from there.

I think you being to get the idea... there are many scimitars (persian, turkish, etc) and there are many swords (english long sword, french longs word, etc) ... but there is only one Katana.

It comes down to the simple equation of what is more cost effective. Equipping all your soldiers with expensive armour or a few soldiers lives?

The goverments around the world will supply you with the nessecary equipment, but only up to a certain cost limit. There is armour out there that will fully stop the type of ammunition that is being used in afghan and similar, but it is totally cost prohibitve to equip thousands of troops with it. Sad but true.

Dont really see what this has to do with Warhammer though!!!

Really? I would like to know what armor is that? AFAIK personal armor only help the victim survivor the wounds, not fully stop AK47 and such. US troops do get personal armor when they go on dangerous patrol and such and still... those guys come back with missing limbs because "weapon" is not limited to guns... they also use bombs. If you wear bombed protecting outfit like the movie "Hurt locker" you can't hold a gun and fire... you are a fat Sumo suit dude who will get killed because you have poor vision and movement.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...Xc&hl=fr#gid=0

have fun

sweet and thanks.

How about factoring initative in there because striking first is very important.

[Bloosquig]

There are plenty of types of body armor that will stop small arms/assault rifle fire in its tracks. Typically cost is a prohibitive issue for armoring nation sized militaries. but I would certainly not say that Weaponry has crushed Armors will to live lol

On the issue of state troops fighting, Initiative will only matter with small numbers of troops due to stepping up. So if it's say 10 vs 10 then it will certainly matter. 40-40 not very much.

[slaanghoul]

There are plenty of types of body armor that will stop small arms/assault rifle fire in its tracks. Typically cost is a prohibitive issue for armoring nation sized militaries. but I would certainly not say that Weaponry has crushed Armors will to live lol

On the issue of state troops fighting, Initiative will only matter with small numbers of troops due to stepping up. So if it's say 10 vs 10 then it will certainly matter. 40-40 not very much.

Please show me that armor. Because even if it is expensive.... many special forces in the world would love to have it.

[kramplarv]

You can't use that formula to get the ultimate weapon. Why? because weapons don't exist in a vacuum. the efficiency of a weapon must be judged not by physical facts, but in what context it exist and in what context it does'nt exist.

A cutting sword is nice to have. But works only in an environment where it's advantages can be utilised. For example the Katana ( and other curved blades) were not used in European warfare until after the body armor hade been long gone.
(falchion being an exception, but it works more like a meat cleaver than a curved sword) Why is that so? because the armors/battlefields tactics/mentality in Europe made short work of the curved blades advantages, and played at it's weakness.
A rapier on the other hand played against the weakness of european warfare/armor/mentality/tactics etc and it became very well developed. But it didn't evolve in Japan where the culture of warfare played to the curved blades efficiency, so there were no needs for a thrusting weapon.

This is true with all weapons. A halberd is a superb weapon, any polearm is. But only if it is used in a context where it does fit in. Same with the longbow vs crossbow. A longbow is a superb weapon, and so is the crossbow. Which one is better? well, depends on the actual contexts. Having 100 peasants without any military training or archery skill... Go for crossbow, but if you have 100 peasants with major archery skills, go for longbow.

Then back to how weapons would be in Warhammer. There are no acutal proof that a katana would be a better sword than a longsword, or a rapier, or hand and a half-swords, etc. For example; a single edged sword can only attack in 8 directions, a doubled edged from 16. But none the less the superior reach and speed of a rapier would probably make a cheddar of any warrior wielding a slashing/cutting sword. It is so hard to make indivudal weapons to have certain rules in warhammer since the games is very abstract. How can an Inner circle knight be as strong as a dragon when he hits with a lance? Answer; he can't. It is just an abstract way to see who is killing who.

A steel sword, an iron sword or an bronze sword are all as effective, since they were used in their own certain context. I can slice you up real good with a sharpened stone. The context and actual suage are the key elements to grade weapons. And certain weapons have been around for ages. Spear, Club, daggers, are the oldest, followed by bows and axes. That is why spear is the ultimate weapon. But a spear would probably lose in 1vs1 combat against a swordsman, or an axeman.


edit: In addition we have to look at the materialistic ways of explaining why history is filled with a lot of those and not so many of that. Truth; Superior weapon are replaced by inferior weapon as in the case of bow and arrow vs gun powder weapons. Why? Because it is easier to make and standardize armies when having gunpowder than bows and arrows. Catpults, ballistas are replaced by cannons. Which at the beginning were far more inferior in all except cost and training. Looking at development are a lot easier to understand if think in a materialistic way than just different weapon classes.

edit2: A shelter where I am safe from a nuclear attack is as much an armor as the tank is. the same principle. A shell, (tank,shelter) is protecting soft people, from devestating weapons. shelter, tank, chainmail, yoroi, leather jacket all are armors.
I would say that armor vs weapons are not over by any means. Just that it takes a different aspect today. Now the alpha strike is more important than attrition. A total change from earlier when attrition where in favor.

[Hideous Loon]

Gentlemen (and ladies), let us have no fighting. This is after all a thread about war.

[petty]Also, where is the "Warhammer Background" in this Warhammer Background thread? What is all this talk of katanas, nuclear bombs and kevlar waistcoats?[/petty]

I think kramplarv makes an excellent point. Varying sorts of weapons, armour and tactics are at their best, only in the context in which they are used. The Bretonnians use formation cavalry charges and peasants with bows, because of their feudal society and cultural obligation of Honour. The Empire use state troopers and knightly orders because of how their pseudo-industrialist society is formed. Dwarfs use short dudes with axes in a variety of shades because of their warlike and traditional culture (as well as their location, it is quite difficult to maintain horses in mines). And so forth.

These differing tactics and weapons do not make sense viewed together, compared and contrasted without considering their context. It therefore becomes difficult to judge "Which weapon is da most killy?", since all these different kinds of weapon styles are perfectly deadly, if wielded by one who can use them. A unit of Dwarven knights would not work, since they cannot use the weapon in question, and Bretonnians would not comprehend the effectiveness of the Lustrian dino riders. However, using the weapon they are accustomed to, they are a deadly force.

Remember, gentlemen (and ladies), a weapon is only as good as the hand swinging it. This, I think, would apply to the fictional setting of Warhammer as well.

[Bloosquig]

Well if you're looking for specific armors...

I was hearing great things about dragon skin when i got out of the military.
http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/body-armor/dragon-skin/

And of course the SAPI plates we wore were effective at stopping stuff that hit you dead center.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small...tective_Insert

And special forces DO wear these types of body armor. Nothings perfect of course but don't count armor out of the arms race just yet.